to come," adds, "How far this ratio of a fundamental Article will stretch, I know not; but believe it will fetch in most of the Articles of the Apostles' Creed. And by it also those two main errors of the Socinians, the one denying the Divine nature, the other the Satisfaction of Christ, may be discerned to be fundamental. For without the belief of the first, the Divine Majesty cannot be rightly, that is incommunicably, worshipped, so as to have no other Gods besides him: for he that believes not Christ to be consubstantial with the Father, and yet honours him with the same worship, worships not the Father incommunicably; which is the formalis ratio of the worship of the true God, from whom we look for Eternal Life. And without the belief of the Second, the Satisfaction of Christ, there can be, I suppose, no saving Faith or reliance upon Christ for forgiveness of Sin." Epistle 83. p. 868. ed. fol. 1677. The subject of Fundamentals is touched upon in some other of his letters to Hartlib and Duræus, from Ep. 82. to Ep. 88. inclusive.

P. 149. 1. 9. The same may be said respecting the con ditions of Salvation.] "By a condition of the Gospel-Covenant is properly to be understood, not whatever is commanded or required, but that only which is required at the peril of one's soul, i. e, on which a man's eternal Life and Salvation does so much depend, that the same being performed a man attains Salvation, and not otherwise. Again, such a condition is twofold, either as being absolutely required at the peril of our souls, or necessary to Salvation; or only on a supposition. The inward works of Faith, Repentance, &c. are absolutely required unto Salvation. But the fruits, or outward works of Faith and Repentance, (under which are com prehended in Scripture all other Christian Virtues, whence the said outward works are wont to be denoted by a good life or holy conversation,) are required only on a supposition that God grants life and opportunity. This being premised concerning the nature of a Gospel-Condition, it follows, that one and the same is a Condition properly so called of the Gospel-Covenant, and of our Justification by the Gospel-Covenant. For first, Nothing is required in the Gospel-Covenant abso

lutely,

lutely, at the peril of our souls, but what is required to our Justification.-Secondly, Nothing is required in the Gospel-Covenant at the peril of one's soul, even on supposition, but what is also so far required to our Justification. The foundation of both Propositions is contained in this third, that in a man's Justification God confers on him a right to Salvation. Hence arises this clear consequence, that nothing can be required in the Gospel to obtain or retain our right to Eternal Life or Salvation, which is not also required to obtain or retain our Justification." Wells on the Covenants, part ii. ch. 6. pp. 149, 150.

P. 150. 1. 14. Its efficacy in the work of our Sanctification.] "The salvation effected for us by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, is represented in the Scriptures as corresponding to every part of our ruin, as an instance of Grace, and to which we had no claim by nature. If our old man be corrupt, through the loss of the Divine image and similitude, by which our Understandings are darkened and our Wills perverted; by this we are renewed again in Knowledge after the image of Him who created us, which is called our new man, created after God, in righteousness and true holiness. If the ppóvnua σapxos or natural concupiscence hangs a weight on our affections, and inclines them to earth, the φρόνημα πνεύματος, οι spiritual desire, is a balance against the carnal mind, and restores the Will to its freedom, which is the glorious liberty of the Sons of God," &c. Ridley's Sermons on the Divinity and Operations of the Holy Ghost, p. 203.

P. 151. 1. 14. The Christian Sacraments and the Christian Priesthood.] The necessity of the Sacraments is largely discussed by Dr. Bennet, in his Confutation of Quakerism, ch. 24, 25, 26. That of the Priesthood is fully investigated in Dr. Hickes's Treatises on the subject, and in Hughes's prefatory Dissertation to his edition of Chrysostom on the Priesthood, 8vo. Cantab. 1710. Both subjects are frequently and copiously enlarged upon by Leslie, in his several controversial writings with the Quakers, particularly in his Discourses on Water-Baptism, and on the Qualifications requisite to administer the Sacraments. See his Works, vol. ii. p. 669-713, and 719-757. See also Scrivener's Body

of

of Divinity, ch. 33. and Sherlock on Religious Assemblies, p. 125-133.

P. 154. 1. 6. Respecting the Covenants entered into by the Almighty with mankind.] "A Covenant is nothing else but an agreement solemnly made between two distinct parties, with Conditions mutually to be observed, as in that between Laban and Jacob, Gen. xxxi. 52. So likewise between God and Man, a stipulation and re-stipulation is made, that the one should perform the part of a Patron and Lord, and the other of a faithful Servant to him. This Covenant is but twofold in general, however it be diversified according to the several occasions of revealing the same. The first was properly a Covenant of Nature; the second of Grace. The Covenant of Nature was first made with Adam at his creation, wherein were bestowed on him, not only such faculties and perfections of being as necessarily tended to the natural perfection of man; but superadded certain supernatural graces which might dispose him with facility to fulfil the Law and the Will of God. Notwithstanding which, he disobeying God, forfeited those more special aids and accomplishments, and so dissolved that Covenant. God proceeded not upon faithless Man according to the rigour of his Justice; but out of his free inscrutable favour inclined to renew a Covenant with him again, and that was in a third Person, not with false Man immediately as before. And this Person, through whom he thus covenanted a second time with Man, was the Man Christ Jesus: and than these are no more Covenants really. Yet because this second, of sending his Son as a Mediator between God and Man, had such different forms and faces upon it, according to the several Oeconomies or Dispensations it pleased God to make to Man, it is often in holy Scripture distinguished into the Old and New: as by St. Paul to the Galatians, saying, These two are the two Covenants, the one from Mount Sinai; the other from Mount Sion or Jerusalem, Gal. iv. 24. And to the Hebrews; If the first Covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been found for the second; Heb. viii. 7. Where he spake of the Covenant of Moses, and that of the Gospel. . . . But that which is often called

the

the New Covenant, or the Covenant of the Gospel, is, according to the substance, of an ancienter date than that made either with Abraham or Moses; being the same which was made with Adam the second time in Paradise. But it is called the New Covenant, because it appeared but newly in respect of its dress and clearer Revelation, at Christ's appearing. And therefore St. John excellently expresses this, when he seemeth to speak on both sides, saying, Brethren, I write no new Commandment to you, but an old Commandment, which ye had from the beginning. Again, a new Commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you. 1 John ii. 7, 8. signifying unto us in what sense the Gospel was New, and in what Old. It was New in comparison of the more conspicuous manifestation of it: it was Old in respect of its ordination. For to this end, the Apostle to the Colossians speaking of the Gospel, calleth it the Mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest, &c. Coloss. i. 26." Scrivener's Course of Divinity, ch. xxxiv. p. 162, 163. See also Wells on the Covenants, ch. 1, 2, 3, 4.

Ibid. 1. 22. Every intermediate dispensation forms a part only of the second Covenant.] It is very important, towards an accurate interpretation of the Sacred Writings, to discriminate between what are, strictly speaking, distinct Covenants, and what are only different Dispensations of the same Covenant. Scrivener, in the chapter just quoted, notices the confusion that is often made in treating of the Old and New Testament, from not observing in what respects these Covenants and Dispensations agree, or differ from each other. The first Covenant terminated with the Fall. The second Covenant commenced immediately after the Fall, and will continue to the end of the world. The different Dispensations, however, of this latter Covenant, sometimes called the Old and New Covenants, agree in certain respects, and differ in others. They agree, in that the substance of both is the same: they agree in their Author: they agree in the principal Mediator of both, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to day, and for ever: they agree as to their main end, the glory of God and the Salvation of mankind: they agree, in that both were

given not immediately from God, but through a Mediator. On the other hand, they differ as to the Persons by whom they were delivered, Moses being only man, but Christ both God and Man: the Law was a type or shadow only, the Gospel the substance: the Law was temporary, the Gospel perpetual: the Law had only temporal promises and penalties; the Gospel, spiritual and everlasting.-But in this twofold division of the Old and New Testaments, the former must be understood to include the Patriarchal as well as the Mosaic Dispensation. Accordingly, some make the division threefold, instead of twofold. This is noticed by Marckius in his Christianæ Theol. Medulla, cap. xvii. de Fœdere Gratia, where he observes, "Foederis hujus Gratiæ Oeconomia potest dici triplex; a. antelegalis, sc. a lapsu ad Mosen, quam hodie promissionis multi appellant; 6. legalis, a Mose ad Christum, quam Vet. Test. iidem dicunt; y. et evangelica, seu N. Test. a Christo ad finem seculorum. Est enim revera magnum discrimen in administratione gratiæ ante et post Mosen, qui verbum scriptum dedit, legem perfecit, unum populum præ aliis omnibus assumpsit, &c." To this division, however, Marckius objects, as tending to obscure the great leading characteristics of the two Covenants before and after the Fall. But if a right discrimination be made between the Covenants themselves and the different Dispensations of the second Covenant, local or temporary, no inconvenience can follow from adopting the simple chronological arrangement, by which the several Epochs from Adam to Moses, from Moses to Christ, and from Christ to the end of the world, are marked as distinct from each other in their external circumstances and administration, though one and the same as to their essential purpose.

P. 155. 1. 3. Covenants of Nature and of Grace, of Incorruptibility and the Resurrection, of Works and of Faith.] Scrivener, as appears from the foregoing extracts, adopts the first of these distinctions. Hingeston, in his Discourses upon the Divine Covenants, 8vo. 1771, speaks of the Covenant of Nature, the Covenant of Incorruptibility, and the Covenant of Resurrection: denoting by the first, that general and universal Law imposed